Ulipristal acetate prevents ovulation more effectively than levonorgestrel: analysis of pooled data from three randomized trials of emergency contraception regimens

Emergency contraception for individuals weighing 80 kg or greater: A randomized trial of 30 mg ulipristal acetate and 1.5 mg or 3.0 mg levonorgestrel

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of emergency contraception (EC) regimens used within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse in individuals weighing ≥80 kg.

STUDY DESIGN

We enrolled reproductive-aged healthy women in a multicenter, single-blind, randomized study of levonorgestrel 1.5 mg (LNG1X) and 3.0 mg (LNG2X) and ulipristal acetate 30 mg (UPA) (enrollment goal 1200). Key eligibility requirements included regular cycles, weight >/= 80kg, unprotected intercourse within 72 hours, no recent use of hormonal contraception, a negative urine pregnancy test (UPT), and willingness to abstain from intercourse until next menses. To assess our primary outcome of incidence of pregnancy, participants completed home UPTs; if no menses by 2-weeks post-treatment, or a positive UPT, they returned for an in-person visit with quantitative serum human chorionic gonadotropin and ultrasound.

RESULTS

We enrolled and randomized 532; 44 were not dosed or not evaluable for primary end point, leaving an analyzable sample of 488 (173 LNG1X, 158 LNG2X, 157 UPA) with similar demographics between groups (mean age 29.6 years [5.74], body mass index 37.09 kg/m2 [6.95]). Five pregnancies occurred (LNG1X n = 1, LNG2X n = 1, UPA n = 3); none occurred during the highest at-risk window (day of ovulation and the 3 days prior). We closed the study before achieving our enrollment goal because the low pregnancy rate in all groups established futility based on an interim blinded analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although slow enrollment limited our study power, we found no differences in pregnancy rates between EC regimens among women weighing 80 kg or more. Our results are not able to refute or support differences between the treatment arms.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clincialtrials.gov Clinical trials#: NCT03537768.

IMPLICATIONS

Women weighing 80 kg or more experienced no differences in pregnancy rates between oral EC regimens but due to several significant study limitations including sample size and the lack of a study population at high risk of pregnancy, our results are not able to determine if differences in treatment effectiveness exist.

Pharmacodynamic evaluation of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant initiated midcycle with and without ulipristal acetate: An exploratory study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the incidence of ovulation suppression within five days of etonogestrel 68 mg implant insertion in the presence of a dominant follicle with and without same-day ulipristal acetate.

STUDY DESIGN

This single site non-masked, exploratory randomized trial recruited people age 18-35 years with regular menstrual cycles, no pregnancy risk, and confirmed ovulatory function. We initiated transvaginal ultrasound examinations on menstrual day 7-9 and randomized participants 1:1 to etonogestrel implant alone or with concomitant ulipristal acetate 30 mg oral when a dominant follicle reached ≥14 mm in diameter. We completed daily sonography and serum hormone levels for up to seven days or transitioned to labs alone if sonographic follicular rupture occurred. We defined ovulation as follicular rupture followed by progesterone >3 ng/mL. We calculated point estimates, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for ovulation for each group. Ovulation suppression of ≥44% in either group (the follicular rupture suppression rate with oral levonorgestrel emergency contraception), would prompt future method testing.

RESULTS

From October 2020 to October 2022, we enrolled 40 people and 39 completed primary outcome assessments: 20 with etonogestrel implant alone (mean follicular size at randomization: 15.2 mm ± 0.9 mm) and 19 with etonogestrel implant + ulipristal acetate (mean follicular size at randomization: 15.4 mm ± 1.2 mm, p = 0.6). Ovulation suppression occurred in 13 (65%) of etonogestrel implant-alone participants (Risk ratio 0.6 (95% CI: 0.3, 1.1), p = 0.08) and seven (37%) of implant + ulipristal acetate participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Ovulation suppression of the etonogestrel implant alone exceeds threshold testing for future research while the implant + ulipristal acetate does not.

IMPLICATIONS

Data are lacking on midcycle ovulation suppression for the etonogestrel implant with and without oral ulipristal acetate. In this exploratory study, ovulation suppression occurred in 65% of implant participants and 37% of implant + ulipristal acetate participants. Ovulation suppression of the implant alone exceeds threshold testing for future emergency contraception research.

The Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine Device as Emergency Contraception: Re-examining the Data

Emergency contraception methods that also deliver ongoing contraception provide the most effective options for individuals hoping to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. Although the copper intrauterine device (IUD) provides the most effective option for emergency contraception because the device prevents pregnancy when placed before implantation and offers long-acting contraception, uptake by patients has been limited. Recently, the Society of Family Planning issued new guidance recommending the levonorgestrel IUD (LNG-IUD) as an emergency contraception option along with the copper IUD. Here, we review evidence related to this recommendation and conclude that the available data do not support use of the LNG-IUD for emergency contraception. We discuss the mechanisms of action of emergency contraception methods and how these concepts interface with the current political and social landscape of contraception and abortion care. We describe limitations of the existing evidence supporting use of the LNG-IUD as emergency contraception and highlight the critical research needed to establish the device as a highly effective method of emergency contraception.

Oral emergency contraception practices of community pharmacies: a mystery caller study in the capital of Germany, Berlin

BACKGROUND

In Germany, oral emergency contraception (EC) with the active ingredients levonorgestrel (LNG) and ulipristal acetate (UPA) is available as over-the-counter (OTC) medicine only from community pharmacies (CPs). Because of the window of effect, which is limited to only a few days, CPs have a great responsibility to provide rapid and unimpeded access, while also ensuring "adequate" counseling. The aim was-for the first time in Europe and thus also in Germany for the methodology used in this study-to investigate immediate availability, pricing, and aspects of counseling.

METHODS

Covert mystery calls were conducted in a random sample of CPs stratified by districts in the German capital Berlin. Each of the 263 CPs included was called once at random by one of two trained female student mystery callers. They simulated a product-based scenario for the UPA original ellaOne^®, citing a contraceptive failure one day ago as the reason.

RESULTS

Of 257 successfully called CPs, UPA preparations were immediately available in 98.4% (253/257) and LNG preparations in 86.8% (184/212) of CPs. Prices for UPA preparations varied from €15.95 to €42.95 (∆ 169%; median €35.00 [interquartile range (IQR) €5.91]) and for LNG preparations from €10.60 to €32.49 (Δ 207%; median €22.00 [IQR €5.76]). Information about the correct different window of effect of UPA and LNG preparations was provided in 69.8% (127/182) of CPs. UPA preparations were recommended in 63.1% (111/176) and LNG preparations in 17.2% (30/174) of CPs. Information was provided on how to take them as soon as possible in 30.8% (44/143) of CPs and on how to use them after vomiting in 46.0% (64/139).

CONCLUSIONS

Berlin CPs support access through high immediate availability, especially to UPA preparations. However, access is hampered by high absolute price ranges of both UPA and LNG preparations, which could ideally be minimized by a comparison app. It is positive that CPs promote the benefits of UPA preparations by recommending them noticeably more often than LNG preparations. However, there are deficiencies in giving advice, so there is a need to raise awareness among pharmacy staff to ensure "adequate" counseling in advance over the phone.

Breaking the Binary: How Clinicians Can Ensure Everyone Receives High Quality Reproductive Health Services

The gender binary has historically defined the study and practice of reproductive and sexual healthcare. However, the male and female binary categorization of sex does not adequately define patients seeking reproductive and sexual health. Comprehensive sexual healthcare should consider diverse gender identity and non-heteronormative sexual practices, family planning, sexually transmitted infections, cancer prevention, and sexual function. Recent research suggests clinicians do not feel prepared to provide care for sexual and gender minority (SGM) patients. In this narrative review, we focus on reproductive and sexual health within the scope of obstetric and gynecologic (OB/GYN) clinical practice. We used traditional medical subject headings to summarize data from publications in peer-reviewed journals published in the last 10 years and identified barriers, facilitators and best practices for de-gendering reproductive healthcare. Following a roughly chronological care path across the lifespan, we categorized findings into the following topics: Early Care for SGM, Sexual Health, Family Planning, and Care Later in Life for SGM. We include recommendations for creating a welcoming environment, SGM inclusive training for clinicians and staff, and best practices for individualized counseling. We review suggested practices related to service delivery and clinical considerations in the provision of sexual and reproductive health care for gender and sexual minority patients.

Perspective Chapter: Modern Birth Control Methods

This chapter focuses on various modern birth control methods, including combined oral contraceptives, progestogen-only pills, progestogen-only injectables, progestogen-only implants, intrauterine devices, barrier contraceptives, and emergency contraceptive pills. Each contraceptive method is covered in detail, including mechanism of action, effectiveness, health benefits, advantages, disadvantages, risks, and side-effects.

Emergency Contraception: Access and Challenges at Times of Uncertainty

BACKGROUND

The UN Commission on Life-Saving Commodities for Women's and Children's Health identified emergency contraceptive pills as 1 of the 13 essential underused, low-cost, and high-impact commodities that could save the lives of millions of women and children worldwide. In the US, 2 emergency contraceptive regimens are currently approved, and their most plausible mechanism of action involves delaying and/or inhibiting ovulation.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Abortion and contraception are recognized as essential components of reproductive health care. In the US, in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Supreme Court decision on June 24, 2022, 26 states began to or are expected to severely restrict abortion. It is anticipated that these restrictions will increase the demand for emergency contraception (EC). Several obstacles to EC access have been described, and these include cost, hurdles to over-the-counter purchase, low awareness, myths about their mechanisms of action, widespread misinformation, and barriers that special populations face in accessing them. The politicization of EC is a major factor limiting access. Improving sex education and health literacy, along with eHealth literacy, are important initiatives to improve EC uptake and access.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, The Guttmacher Institute, Society of Family Planning, American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization, The United Nations.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

A randomized noninferiority trial showed that the 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine device was noninferior to the copper intrauterine device when used as an EC method in the first 5 days after unprotected intercourse. This is a promising and highly effective emergency contraceptive option, particularly for overweight and obese patients, and a contraceptive option with a different bleeding profile than the copper intrauterine device.

CONCLUSIONS

EC represents an important facet of medicine and public health. The 2 medical regimens currently approved in the US are very effective, have virtually no medical contraindications, and novel formulations are actively being investigated to make them more convenient and effective for all patient populations. Barriers to accessing EC, including the widespread presence of contraception deserts, threaten to broaden and accentuate the already existing inequities and disparities in society, at a time when they have reached the dimensions of a public health crisis.

Potential candidate for oral pericoital contraception: evaluating ulipristal acetate plus cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor for ovulation disruption

BACKGROUND

There remains considerable global unmet contraceptive need, with almost 200 million women reporting desire to limit or space childbearing without contraceptive use. Researchers have documented worldwide interest in an oral, on-demand contraceptive option were it available. Candidates for use include ulipristal acetate (UA), levonorgestrel and cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors alone or in combination.

METHODS

We performed an exploratory, prospective study of matched menstrual cycles: one baseline cycle and one treatment cycle of UA 30 mg plus meloxicam 30 mg just prior to ovulation. The primary outcome was ovulation disruption, defined as unruptured dominant follicle for 5 days. Secondary outcomes included comparing cycle length, endometrial stripe thickness, and side effects.

RESULTS

Nine participants completed all study procedures in both cycles. Ovulatory disruption occurred in 66.7% (n=6) of treatment cycles and all but one demonstrated features of ovulatory dysfunction. Cycle length (mean±SD) was longer in the treatment cycle (31.9±4.0 vs 28.6±3.5 days, p<0.01). Secondary outcomes did not differ between the two cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

UA plus the COX-2 inhibitor meloxicam disrupts ovulation at peak luteal surge and is a promising candidate for evaluation as a pericoital oral contraceptive.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03354117.

Double Dosing Levonorgestrel-Based Emergency Contraception for Individuals With Obesity: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Increasing the dose of levonorgestrel-containing emergency contraception from 1.5 mg to 3 mg did not improve rates of ovulation delay in individuals with obesity.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess whether dose escalation (ie, doubling the dose) of emergency contraception that contains levonorgestrel (LNG) improves pharmacodynamic outcomes in individuals with obesity.

METHODS:

We enrolled healthy, reproductive-age individuals with regular menstrual cycles, body mass index (BMI) higher than 30, and weight at least 176 lbs in a randomized pharmacodynamic study. After confirming ovulation (luteal progesterone level greater than 3 ng/mL), we monitored participants with transvaginal ultrasonography and blood sampling for progesterone, luteinizing hormone, and estradiol every other day until a dominant follicle measuring 15 mm or greater was visualized. At that point, participants received either oral emergency contraception with LNG 1.5 mg or 3 mg (double dose) and returned for daily monitoring for up to 7 days. Our primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants with no follicle rupture 5 days postdosing (yes or no) between groups. The study had 80% power to detect a 30% difference in the proportion of cycles with at least a 5-day delay in follicle rupture (50% decrease).

RESULTS:

A total of 70 enrolled and completed study procedures. The two groups had similar baseline demographics (mean age 28 years, BMI 38). We found no difference between groups in the proportion of participants without follicle rupture more than 5 days post–LNG dosing (LNG 1.5 mg: 18/35 [51.4%]; LNG 3.0 mg: 24/35 [68.6%], P=.14). Among participants with follicle rupture before 5 days, the time to rupture did not differ between groups (day at 75% probability of no rupture is day 2 for both groups).

CONCLUSION:

Individuals with higher BMIs and weights experience a higher risk of failure of emergency contraception with LNG and exhibit an altered pharmacokinetic profile. However, the simple strategy of doubling the dose does not appear to be an effective intervention to improve outcomes.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov, 02859337.

Contraception Selection, Effectiveness, and Adverse Effects: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Many women spend a substantial proportion of their lives preventing or planning for pregnancy, and approximately 87% of US women use contraception during their lifetime.

OBSERVATIONS

Contraceptive effectiveness is determined by a combination of drug or device efficacy, individual fecundability, coital frequency, and user adherence and continuation. In the US, oral contraceptive pills are the most commonly used reversible method of contraception and comprise 21.9% of all contraception in current use. Pregnancy rates of women using oral contraceptives are 4% to 7% per year. Use of long-acting methods, such as intrauterine devices and subdermal implants, has increased substantially, from 6% of all contraceptive users in 2008 to 17.8% in 2016; these methods have failure rates of less than 1% per year. Estrogen-containing methods, such as combined oral contraceptive pills, increase the risk of venous thrombosis from 2 to 10 venous thrombotic events per 10 000 women-years to 7 to 10 venous thrombotic events per 10 000 women-years, whereas progestin-only and nonhormonal methods, such as implants and condoms, are associated with rare serious risks. Hormonal contraceptives can improve medical conditions associated with hormonal changes related to the menstrual cycle, such as acne, endometriosis, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Optimal contraceptive selection requires patient and clinician discussion of the patient's tolerance for risk of pregnancy, menstrual bleeding changes, other risks, and personal values and preferences.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Oral contraceptive pills are the most commonly used reversible contraceptives, intrauterine devices and subdermal implants have the highest effectiveness, and progestin-only and nonhormonal methods have the lowest risks. Optimal contraceptive selection incorporates patient values and preferences.

[The history of emergency contraception]

Emergency contraception (EC) has evolved since the 1960's to enable a better tolerance. Lower hormone doses, simplified schemes, withdrawal of estrogens have led to a user friendly, over-the-counter available EC. The copper intra-uterine device, requiring health care professionals' intervention, is less accessible. However, it allows simultaneous initiation of a reliable long-term contraception. Unfortunately, EC is still underused and information reinforcement is needed to overcome reluctance to its use.

Changes in use of emergency contraceptive pills in the United States from 2008 to 2015

OBJECTIVES

To describe changes in use and receipt of emergency contraceptive (EC) pills among women in the United States during a period of key EC policy changes, from 2008 to 2015.

STUDY DESIGN

Using data from the 2006 to 2010 and 2013 to 2017 National Surveys of Family Growth, we present changes in the percent of women who ever used EC between 2008 and 2015 by select sociodemographic and sexual and reproductive health characteristics, and we examine multivariable relationships of these characteristics with EC ever use in 2015. We also examine changes in repeat EC use, receipt of EC counseling, reasons for EC use and source of EC between the time periods.

RESULTS

Among sexually experienced women ages 15 to 44, EC ever use increased from 11% in 2008 to 23% in 2015 overall and among nearly all groups of women. In 2015, age 20 to 29, non-Hispanic other or Hispanic race, at least a high school education, working part-time, income at least 100% of the federal poverty level, ever having been married, and having received EC counseling in the prior year all represent characteristics associated with higher odds of having ever used EC. In 2015, a smaller share of women last obtained EC with a prescription or at a health facility than in 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in EC use occurred as access to EC was broadened through regulatory changes that moved some forms of EC from behind-the-counter to fully over-the-counter between 2008 and 2015.

IMPLICATIONS

Over-the-counter provision of many forms of EC pills may have increased access and introduced more flexibility in how EC is obtained, but these changes may have come with tradeoffs, both in the form of cost barriers and decreased opportunities for clinicians to discuss EC with their patients. Despite improved access to contraception more broadly through the Affordable Care Act, EC remains a necessary component of the overall contraceptive method mix, and clinicians can play a key role in discussing EC as one option among many during contraceptive counseling sessions.

Selective Progesterone Receptor Modulators-Mechanisms and Therapeutic Utility

Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) are a new class of compounds developed to target the progesterone receptor (PR) with a mix of agonist and antagonist properties. These compounds have been introduced for the treatment of several gynecological conditions based on the critical role of progesterone in reproduction and reproductive tissues. In patients with uterine fibroids, mifepristone and ulipristal acetate have consistently demonstrated efficacy, and vilaprisan is currently under investigation, while studies of asoprisnil and telapristone were halted for safety concerns. Mifepristone demonstrated utility for the management of endometriosis, while data are limited regarding the efficacy of asoprisnil, ulipristal acetate, telapristone, and vilaprisan for this condition. Currently, none of the SPRMs have shown therapeutic success in treating endometrial cancer. Multiple SPRMs have been assessed for efficacy in treating PR-positive recurrent breast cancer, with in vivo studies suggesting a benefit of mifepristone, and multiple in vitro models suggesting the efficacy of ulipristal acetate and telapristone. Mifepristone, ulipristal acetate, vilaprisan, and asoprisnil effectively treated heavy menstrual bleeding (HBM) in patients with uterine fibroids, but limited data exist regarding the efficacy of SPRMs for HMB outside this context. A notable class effect of SPRMs are benign, PR modulator-associated endometrial changes (PAECs) due to the actions of the compounds on the endometrium. Both mifepristone and ulipristal acetate are effective for emergency contraception, and mifepristone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012 for the treatment of Cushing's syndrome due to its additional antiglucocorticoid effect. Based on current evidence, SPRMs show considerable promise for treatment of several gynecologic conditions.

The effects on ovarian activity of delaying versus immediately restarting combined oral contraception after missing three pills and taking ulipristal acetate 30 mg

OBJECTIVE

Among combined oral contraception (COC) users, to determine the effect on ovarian activity and ovulation of waiting five days before restarting COC, versus restarting immediately, having taken ulipristal acetate 30 mg (UPA, the dose used for emergency contraception) after missing three consecutive COC pills.

STUDY DESIGN

Women already using COC were enrolled for two cycles of COC use (21/7 regimen). In cycle 2, all women omitted COC pills for three consecutive days (days 5,6,7), and on day 8 took UPA 30 mg. They were randomized either to restart their COC pills that same day (immediate restart) or to wait five days (delayed restart). Transvaginal ultrasound, and blood sampling for estradiol and progesterone were undertaken on days 4,8,11,13,15,18,22 and 26. A modified Hoogland score was used to quantify ovarian activity/ovulation and to assess whether luteal phase progesterone concentrations were sufficiently 'adequate' to have conferred a theoretical risk of pregnancy.

RESULTS

No one ovulated with risk of pregnancy during the five days following UPA. Among 26 women with immediate restart, none ovulated with a theoretical risk of pregnancy at any time in the cycle. Four of 23 women (17.4% CI [5.0; 38.8]) with delayed restart ovulated with theoretical risk of pregnancy before the end of the cycle. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.042).

CONCLUSION

Women who delay restarting COC for five days after taking UPA 30 mg are at much greater risk of ovulation, and therefore theoretically of pregnancy, than if they restart their COC on the same day as taking UPA. Current recommendations should be revisited.

IMPLICATIONS

Women who take UPA-EC after having missed combined oral contraceptive pills are advised to wait five days before restarting the COC. This delay puts them at risk of ovulation and, if intercourse occurs, theoretically therefore of pregnancy. Women who restart their COC pills immediately are much less likely to ovulate. The label for UPA-EC and clinical guidelines on using EC after missed pills should be revisited.

Ulipristal acetate and pregnancy outcome-an observational study

STUDY QUESTION

Is the failure of the selective progesterone receptor modulator ulipristal acetate (UPA) as emergency contraception (EC; 30 mg, single) or inadvertent exposure for myoma treatment (5 mg/d) in pregnancy associated with a higher risk of birth defects, spontaneous abortion (SAB) or elective termination of pregnancy (ETOP)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

We did not find an increased risk for birth defects, SABs or ETOPs after UPA exposure during implantation and early embryogenesis.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Pregnancy outcome data after exposure to UPA are very limited. In cases of EC failure or unplanned pregnancy during myoma treatment, women need well-grounded risk assessment to minimize anxiety and prevent unjustified termination of pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Observational study of prospectively ascertained pregnancies from the German Embryotox institute with UPA exposure (EC, n = 95; myoma, n = 7). Four retrospectively reported pregnancy outcomes were evaluated separately.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 226 requests on ulipristal were directed to the German Embryotox institute during the study period 2010-2018. Outcomes of pregnancies exposed-(i) precycle, (ii) preconceptional or (iii) first trimester-were ascertained using standardized questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were applied.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Failed EC with UPA resulted in 95 prospectively ascertained pregnancies, of which 56 had completed follow-up: 37 live births, 7 SABs and 12 ETOPs. There was no major birth defect. Just 34% of women had taken UPA during the fertile window. Seven prospectively enrolled pregnancies were treated for myoma and had known pregnancy outcomes: five healthy live births and two SABs. Among the four retrospectively reported pregnancies after EC, there was one child diagnosed with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our limited sample size does not allow concluding safety of UPA use in pregnancy.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

We provide a preliminary basis for reassuring women who wish to carry their pregnancy to term after EC or myoma treatment with UPA. However, because of the report of a BWS after UPA exposure, a possible epigenetic effect could not be excluded and requires further evaluation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was performed with financial support from the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Registered with the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00015155).

Ulipristal acetate compared to levonorgestrel emergency contraception among current oral contraceptive users: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and levonorgestrel (LNG) emergency contraception (EC) on pregnancy prevention among combined oral contraceptive (COC) pill users with an extended pill-free interval. We accounted for the potential interaction of COCs and obesity on EC efficacy.

METHODS

We built a decision-analytic model using TreeAge software to evaluate the optimal oral EC strategy in a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 twenty-five-year-old women midcycle with a prolonged "missed" pill episode (8-14 days). We used a 5-year time horizon and 3% discount rate. From a healthcare perspective, we obtained probabilities, utilities and costs inflated to 2018 dollars from the literature. We set the threshold for cost-effectiveness at a standard $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. We included the following clinical outcomes: number of protected cycles, unintended pregnancies, abortions, deliveries and costs.

RESULTS

We found that UPA was the optimal method of oral EC, as it resulted in 720 fewer unintended pregnancies, 736 fewer abortions and 80 fewer deliveries at a total cost savings of $50,323 and 79 additional adjusted life-years. UPA continued to be the optimal strategy even in the case of obesity or COCs impacting UPA efficacy, in which a COC interaction would have to change efficacy of UPA by 160% before LNG was the dominant strategy.

CONCLUSION

Our models found that UPA was the dominant choice of oral EC among COC users with a prolonged "missed" pill episode, regardless of body mass index or an adverse interaction of COCs on UPA.

IMPLICATIONS

Ulipristal acetate is the dominant choice of oral emergency contraception among combined oral contraceptive users.

A single post-ovulatory dose of ulipristal acetate impairs post-fertilization events in mice

Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a selective progesterone receptor modulator used for emergency contraception that has proven to be highly effective in preventing pregnancy when taken up to 120 h after unprotected sexual intercourse. Even though it may act mainly by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, additional effects of UPA on post-fertilization events cannot be excluded. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine whether a single post-ovulatory dose of UPA could prevent pregnancy using the mouse as a pre-clinical model. Mated females received a single dose of UPA (40 mg/kg) on Day E1.5 or E2.5 (E0.5: copulatory plug detection) and post-fertilization events were evaluated. Our studies revealed that UPA administration produced a significant decrease in the number of conceptuses compared to control. Moreover, UPA-treated females exhibited a lower number of early implantation sites on Day E5.5, despite normal in vivo embryo development and transport to the uterus at E3.5. Administration of UPA produced histological and functional alterations in the uterine horns, i.e., a dyssynchronous growth between endometrial glands and stroma, with non-physiological combination of both fractions compared to controls, and a completely impaired ability to respond to an artificial decidualization stimulus. Altogether, our results show that the administration of a single post-ovulatory dose of UPA impairs mouse pregnancy probably due to an effect on embryo-uterine interaction, supporting additional effects of the drug on post-fertilization events. Although these studies cannot be performed with human samples, our results with the mouse model provide new insights into the mechanism of action of UPA as an emergency contraception method.

Interventions for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency.Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I² = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence).Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence).Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence).Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I² = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I² = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I² = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I² = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA may be more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.

Pericoital contraception

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the literature on repeat use of emergency contraception and pericoital approaches to contraception.

RECENT FINDINGS

Women are very interested in an oral, on-demand contraceptive option, were one available. Ulipristal acetate and a combination of levonorgestrel (LNG) and meloxicam (a cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor) both appear to be more effective at disrupting ovulation than LNG alone. Recent advisories from the United Kingdom regarding daily dosing of ulipristal for fibroids emphasize the need for more safety data.

SUMMARY

Repeat pericoital dosing of 1.5-mg LNG is approximately as effective as other on-demand contraceptive methods and is overall very safe. The most common side effect is irregular bleeding. Repeat on-demand ulipristal acetate or meloxicam/other cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors have potential as an on-demand option either alone or in combination but have not been evaluated for contraceptive efficacy in a large-scale study. Given the high unmet need for contraception, even among women with access to available options, there is a distinct need for options that address needs of women who are interested in an on-demand option. On-demand oral contraception has the potential to expand the convenience of contraceptive options and overall contraceptive use.

[Emergency contraception: CNGOF Contraception Guidelines]

OBJECTIVES

Edit, by the French National College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF), recommendations based on the evidence available in the literature for the use in terms of effectiveness, safety and side effects of emergency contraception (EC).

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted by consulting Medline, Cochrane Library and international recommendations in French and English from January 1, 1979 to May 1, 2018.

RESULTS

It is recommended to inform patients that EC is not 100% effective. A pregnancy test is recommended if there is a delay after taking an EC. It is recommended to use EC as soon as possible after the unprotected intercourse. In the absence of long-term contraception, in the first 72hours after unprotected intercourse, ulipristal acetate (UPA) and levonorgestrel (LNG) may be offered with a superiority of UPA from 0 to 72h. Beyond 72hours, the data suggest a better efficiency of the UPA. However, taking into account practical elements (access to EC, cost, impact on the taking of hormonal contraception after UPA), it is difficult to recommend the UPA as a priority between 0 and 72h. Menstruation is more likely to happen early with LNG. The copper IUD is an effective method that can be used in EC until 120hours after unprotected intercourse or when there is a risk of contraceptive failure.

CONCLUSIONS

EC is not 100% effective. The closer the intake of EC with the unprotected intercourse, the more effective is the EC in terms of pregnancy rate.

Combined oral contraceptive interference with the ability of ulipristal acetate to delay ovulation: A prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a combined oral contraceptive (COC) initiated shortly after ulipristal acetate (UPA) administration interferes with its mechanism of action.

STUDY DESIGN

Healthy, reproductive-age women of normal BMI with proven ovulation (serum progesterone >3 ng/ml) were enrolled for three cycles (Cycle 1, UPA only; Cycle 2 washout; Cycle 3 UPA plus COC). During Cycles 1 and 3, subjects were monitored with transvaginal ultrasound and blood sampling for progesterone and LH every other day until a dominant follicle measuring >15 mm was visualized. In both treatment cycles, subjects received UPA (30mg) and were followed daily with similar monitoring for up to 7 days. In Cycle 3 only, subjects initiated a daily COC (0.15 mg levonorgestrel/30 μg ethinyl estradiol) 2 days after UPA. The study had 80% power to detect a 15% difference in the proportion of cycles with at least a 5-day delay in follicle rupture. We assessed follicle rupture as >50% decrease in mean size and adjudicated unclear outcomes with serum hormones.

RESULTS

A total of 36 women enrolled and 33 completed all study procedures [age 28.4 years (SD 3.9); BMI 23.4 (SD 2.4)]. Compared to Cycle 1, more subjects demonstrated evidence of follicle rupture in <5 days in Cycle 3 [1/33 (3%) vs. 9/33 (27%), p = .008]. We also included data from 2 subjects who experienced rupture prior to COC dosing in the analysis.

CONCLUSION

UPA's effectiveness is significantly reduced by administering COCs 2 days later.

IMPLICATIONS

This study demonstrates that UPA's efficacy as an emergency contraceptive is reduced with early exposure to COCs.

Efficacy, safety and recurrence of new progestins and selective progesterone receptor modulator for the treatment of endometriosis: a comparison study in mice

BACKGROUND

Current medical treatments for endometriosis are very limited. Progestin and selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRM) are developed but their efficacy, safety, mechanism and recurrence in endometriosis are not fully studied.

METHODS

In order to compare therapeutic, side effects and therapeutic actions of Esmya, Duphaston and Dienogest in endometriosis. Experimental endometriosis was induced by either intraperitoneal or subcutaneous mouse endometrium transplantation. Lesion size, weight and histology at the end of intervention were compared. Expression of related markers in the endometriotic lesions were examined. Body, uterus and ovary weights, endometrial glands and thickness (ETI), and follicle count were measured. For recurrent study, lesion growth before and after intervention was monitored.

RESULTS

After Esmya, Duphaston, Dienogest treatment, lesion size and weight were significantly decreased. Proliferation Pcna expression was significantly decreased in all groups, but proliferation cells were significantly decreased only in Duphaston group. Apoptosis Mapk1 expression and TUNEL-positive cells were significantly increased in Duphaston group. Adhesion Mmp2 and Itgavβ3 expression were significantly increased in Esmya group. Plau, Hif1α and Vegfa expression, peritoneal fluid PGE2 levels, and ERα and ERβ expression were not affected; while PR expression was significantly lower in all groups. Endometrial gland count in uterus was significantly increased in Dienogest group, ETI was significantly decreased in Duphaston group, and AFC were significantly increased in Esmya group. Upon treatment cessation, lesion growth rebound quickly in Dienogest and Duphaston groups, but slowly in Esmya group.

CONCLUSION

Esmya, Duphaston and Dienogest are effective anti-endometriosis drugs targeting proliferation, apoptosis and adhesion. Esmya, Duphaston and Dienogest are all well tolerable, although endometrial glandular hyperplasia was found in Dienogest, endometrial atrophy in Duphaston, follicle accumulation in Esmya.

Selective progesterone receptor modulators: current applications and perspectives

Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) are steroid progesterone receptor ligands able to induce agonistic or antagonistic activities. Mifepristone, the class leader, was primarily used for pregnancy termination from the 1980s. Emergency contraception with extended activity was the second major development 30 years later, with mifepristone in some countries and ulipristal acetate world-wide. More recently, ulipristal acetate was released for the treatment of myoma-related uterine bleeding. In addition to a very rapid cessation of bleeding, SPRMs allow a decrease in myoma volume, as do gonadotropin releasing hormone analogs. However, estradiol secretion is not blunted by SPRMs. This offers new alternatives for myoma treatment, especially in women close to menopause. In conclusion, use of SPRMs has allowed significant progress in emergency contraception and treatment of myoma-related symptoms. Numerous future perspectives in women's health care are currently under evaluation.

Contraception options: Aspects unique to adolescent and young adult

Sexual health for adolescents is based on three components: recognizing sexual rights, sexuality education and counseling, and thirdly confidential high quality services. Contraception needs to include prevention of both STIs and pregnancies. The first option for adolescents is condoms backed-up by emergency contraception; and later hormonal contraceptives in a longer, mutually monogamous relationship. Condoms and hormonal contraception together can be well recommended for adolescents for dual protection. Long acting reversible contraception (LARC) including both intrauterine contraception and implants are safe and highly effective and thus well suited for adolescents. Improved contraceptive methods do not automatically lead to reduced numbers of adolescent abortions. When sexuality education, proper counseling and sexual health services are all provided, it is possible to profoundly improve adolescent sexual health.

Interventions for emergency contraception

BACKGROUND

Emergency contraception (EC) is using a drug or copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) to prevent pregnancy shortly after unprotected intercourse. Several interventions are available for EC. Information on the comparative effectiveness, safety and convenience of these methods is crucial for reproductive healthcare providers and the women they serve. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009 and 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which EC method following unprotected intercourse is the most effective, safe and convenient to prevent pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Popline and PubMed, The Chinese biomedical databases and UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Human Reproduction (HRP) emergency contraception database. We also searched ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov as well as contacting content experts and pharmaceutical companies, and searching reference lists of appropriate papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials including women attending services for EC following a single act of unprotected intercourse were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was observed number of pregnancies. Side effects and changes of menses were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 115 trials with 60,479 women in this review. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcome ranged from moderate to high, and for other outcomes ranged from very low to high. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods), imprecision and inconsistency. Comparative effectiveness of different emergency contraceptive pills (ECP)Levonorgestrel was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (estradiol-levonorgestrel combination) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 23%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy using Yuzpe is assumed to be 29 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy using levonorgestrel would be between 11 and 24 women per 1000.Mifepristone (all doses) was associated with fewer pregnancies than Yuzpe (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41, 3 RCTs, n = 2144, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following Yuzpe is assumed to be 25 women per 1000 women, the chance following mifepristone would be between 1 and 10 women per 1000.Both low-dose mifepristone (less than 25 mg) and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were probably associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99, 14 RCTs, n = 8752, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83, 27 RCTs, n = 6052, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence; respectively). This suggests that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 20 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following low-dose mifepristone would be between 10 and 20 women per 1000; and that if the chance of pregnancy following levonorgestrel is assumed to be 35 women per 1000, the chance of pregnancy following mid-dose mifepristone would be between 16 and 29 women per 1000.Ulipristal acetate (UPA) was associated with fewer pregnancies than levonorgestrel (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.99, 2 RCTs, n = 3448, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of different ECP dosesIt was unclear whether there was any difference in pregnancy rate between single-dose levonorgestrel (1.5 mg) and the standard two-dose regimen (0.75 mg 12 hours apart) (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, n = 6653, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).Mid-dose mifepristone was associated with fewer pregnancies than low-dose mifepristone (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97, 25 RCTs, n = 11,914, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Comparative effectiveness of Cu-IUD versus mifepristoneThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in the risk of pregnancy between the Cu-IUD and mifepristone (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.74, 2 RCTs, n = 395, low-quality evidence). Adverse effectsNausea and vomiting were the main adverse effects associated with emergency contraception. There is probably a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 2186 , I2 = 59%, moderate-quality evidence) or vomiting (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20, 3 RCTs, n = 2186, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence) associated with mifepristone than with Yuzpe. levonorgestrel is probably associated with a lower risk of nausea (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.44, 6 RCTs, n = 4750, I2 = 82%, moderate-quality evidence), or vomiting (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.35, 5 RCTs, n = 3640, I2 = 78%, moderate-quality evidence) than Yuzpe. Levonorgestrel users were less likely to have any side effects than Yuzpe users (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86; 1 RCT, n = 1955, high-quality evidence). UPA users were more likely than levonorgestrel users to have resumption of menstruation after the expected date (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.92, 2 RCTs, n = 3593, I2 = 0%, high-quality evidence). Menstrual delay was more common with mifepristone than with any other intervention and appeared to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than mifepristone (18 events in 95 women using Cu-IUD versus no events in 190 women using mifepristone, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Levonorgestrel and mid-dose mifepristone (25 mg to 50 mg) were more effective than Yuzpe regimen. Both mid-dose (25 mg to 50 mg) and low-dose mifepristone(less than 25 mg) were probably more effective than levonorgestrel (1.5 mg). Mifepristone low dose (less than 25 mg) was less effective than mid-dose mifepristone. UPA was more effective than levonorgestrel.Levonorgestrel users had fewer side effects than Yuzpe users, and appeared to be more likely to have a menstrual return before the expected date. UPA users were probably more likely to have a menstrual return after the expected date. Menstrual delay was probably the main adverse effect of mifepristone and seemed to be dose-related. Cu-IUD may be associated with higher risks of abdominal pain than ECPs.

Emergency Contraception Algorithm and Guide for Clinicians

There are currently three forms of emergency contraception: oral levonorgestrel, oral ulipristal acetate, and the copper intrauterine device. The copper intrauterine device is the most effective, followed by ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel, respectively. Although levonorgestrel is the least effective method, studies show that more prescribers are familiar with it and that is the most frequently used method. Clinicians should consider several factors when helping women make informed medical decisions regarding emergency contraception, including access to the products, a woman's individual preference, timing since unprotected intercourse, body mass index or weight, and initiation or resumption of routine contraception. This article explains and summarizes these considerations and provides an algorithm to guide clinicians.

Ulipristal acetate administration at mid-cycle changes gene expression profiling of endometrial biopsies taken during the receptive period of the human menstrual cycle

The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of mid-cycle administration of Ulipristal acetate (UPA) on gene expression in endometrial biopsies taken during the receptive phase of the cycle. Fourteen healthy menstruating women were studied during 14 control non-treated and 12 treated cycles with a single dose of 30 mg UPA when follicle diameter reached 20 mm. Ovulation in both treated and control cycles was confirmed by serial determinations of serum LH, progesterone and vaginal ultrasound. An endometrial biopsy at day LH+7, in each cycle, was taken for RNA microarray and qPCR analysis or prepared for histological and immunohistochemistry studies. Functional analysis of differentially expressed genes showed the presence of changes compatible with a non-receptive endometrial phenotype, further confirmed by qPCR and immunohistochemistry. This study suggests the effects of UPA on endometrial receptivity, offering a plausible explanation for the higher contraceptive efficacy of this method compared to that of levonorgestrel.

Experience with oral emergency contraception since the OTC switch in Germany

PURPOSE

In March 2015, the oral emergency contraceptives levonorgestrel (LNG) and ulipristal acetate (UPA) were released from prescription-only status in Germany. The main research question is to analyse whether the OTC status of oral emergency contraceptives has an influence on the patterns of use.

METHODS

All information is based on searches for public domain sources on emergency contraception. Searches were made for scientific publications, statistics, and surveys.

RESULTS

Due to additional active ingredient properties, UPA is superior to LNG in terms of ovulation-inhibiting effect. Since the OTC switch, demand for oral emergency contraceptives has risen by almost 50%, especially at weekends when sexual encounters and thus contraceptive failures are most frequent. However, the age distribution of the users has not changed as a result of the OTC switch. Doctors still play an important role in advising on emergency contraception after the removal of the prescription-only requirement. Pregnancies despite emergency contraception are terminated in more than half of the cases. In federal states with higher rates of use of the morning-after pill, fewer terminations of pregnancy were performed.

CONCLUSION

As a result of the OTC switch, more women and girls use the morning-after pill after unprotected intercourse and the time between unprotected intercourse and taking the oral emergency contraceptive decreases. This is of great advantage in terms of the mechanism of action. UPA is used more frequently than LNG. Only half of all people aged between 16 and 39 years in Germany are aware of the morning-after pill and 94% of women who had a pregnancy terminated in 2015 did not use any emergency contraception after the unprotected intercourse. In the population, there is still a great need for information and education on contraception and emergency contraception.

Does levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive have a post-fertilization effect? A review of its mechanism of action

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have identified that levonorgestrel administered orally in emergency contraception (LNG-EC) is only efficacious when taken before ovulation. However, the drug does not consistently prevent follicular rupture or impair sperm function.

OBJECTIVE

The present systematic review is performed to analyze and more precisely define the extent to which pre-fertilization mechanisms of action may explain the drug's efficacy in pregnancy avoidance. We also examine the available evidence to determine if pre-ovulatory drug administration may be associated with post-fertilization effects.

CONCLUSION

The mechanism of action of LNG-EC is reviewed. The drug has no ability to alter sperm function at doses used in vivo and has limited ability to suppress ovulation. Our analysis estimates that the drug's ovulatory inhibition potential could prevent less than 15 percent of potential conceptions, thus making a pre-fertilization mechanism of action significantly less likely than previously thought. Luteal effects (such as decreased progesterone, altered glycodelin levels, and shortened luteal phase) present in the literature may suggest a pre-ovulatory induced post-fertilization drug effect.

LAY SUMMARY

Plan B is the most widely used emergency contraceptive available. It is important for patients and physicians to clearly understand the drug's mechanism of action (MOA). The drug was originally thought to work by preventing fertilization. Recent research has cast doubt on this. Our review of the research suggests that it could act in a pre-fertilization capacity, and we estimate that it could prevent ovulation in only 15 percent or less of cases. The drug has no ability to alter sperm function and limited ability to suppress ovulation. Further, data suggest that when administered pre-ovulation, it may have a post-fertilization MOA.

Mechanism of Action of Ulipristal Acetate for Emergency Contraception: A Systematic Review

Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is now recommended as first choice hormonal emergency contraception (EC), due to its higher efficacy and similar safety compared to Levonorgestrel - EC. Even though all trials demonstrated that the first mechanism of action is inhibition of ovulation, some authors still postulate that a post fertilization effect is also possible, raising the alert on medication and fostering the ethical debate. A Medline database search was performed in order to find recent articles related to UPA's effects on ovulation, on fallopian tube and on endometrium. We also analyzed the effects on sperm function and pregnancy. All studies conclude that UPA is effective in inhibition of ovulation even when administered shortly before LH peak. The effects on fallopian tube are unclear: according to some authors UPA inhibits ciliar beat through an agonistic effect on progesterone receptors, according to others it antagonizes the progesterone-induced ciliar beat decrease. Concerning the action on endometrium and on embryo implantation most of the studies concluded that low dose UPA used for EC has no significant effect on the decrease of endometrial thickness and on embryo's attachment, but these results are still matter of debate. Finally recent evidence suggests that UPA modulates human sperm functions while it has no effect on established pregnancy. To date the majority of the evidence concurs in excluding a post-fertilization effect of UPA, even though more studies are needed to clarify its mechanism of action.

Intrauterine contraception

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are effective, reversible forms of contraception with high patient satisfaction and continuation. IUDs can be safely used by most women and should be considered the first-line method of contraception for all women. This descriptive review will discuss the clinical issues associated with IUDs - including management of side effects, noncontraceptive uses and insertion and removal. When the burdens of cost are removed, women are more likely to select and IUDs. Health policy changes that increase insurance coverage for contraception will improve access to IUDs. IUDs remain an underutilized form of contraception in USA and efforts to improve availability and access to long-acting reversible contraception methods is needed to optimize their use.

Emergency contraception: What is new?

Unintended pregnancy rates remain high throughout the World and increase the risk of poor maternal and infant outcomes. Most of unintended pregnancies occur in women who were not using contraception or who became pregnant despite the reported use of contraception. Women who have had recent unprotected intercourse including those who have had another form of contraception fail are potential candidates for this intervention. Currently used emergency contraceptive methods are pills that contain combined estrogen-progesterone, only progestin, antiprogestins and copper intrauterine devices. The most common form of this type of contraception is oral progestin-only pills (levonorgestrel). The most effective method is copper intrauterine devices followed by anti-progestins and oral progestin-only pills. The major pathogenesis of oral emergency contraceptives is the prevention or delay of ovulation. Although conception is possible on only a few days of the cycle, emergency contraception is offered when indicated without regard to the timing of the menstrual cycle because of uncertainty in the timing of the ovulation. Levonorgestrel and E/P regimes are most effective as soon as possible after unprotected sexual intercourse. A linear relationship has been shown between effectiveness and the time of dose. The effectiveness continues for 120 h, but it is recommended to be used within 72 h after intercourse. Intrauterine devices may prevent pregnancy when 5 d after ovulation.

A prospective, randomized, pharmacodynamic study of quick-starting a desogestrel progestin-only pill following ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception

STUDY QUESTION

Is there a pharmacodynamic interaction between ulipristal acetate (UPA) 30 mg for emergency contraception and a daily progestin-only contraceptive pill, desogestrel (DSG) 0.75 mg, when initiated the next day?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In this study, DSG impaired the ability of UPA to delay ovulation, but UPA had little impact on the onset of contraceptive effects due to DSG.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

UPA is a progesterone receptor modulator used for emergency contraceptive (EC) at the dose of 30 mg. UPA delays ovulation by at least 5 days when administered in the mid to late follicular phase. In theory, potent progestins could reactivate progesterone signaling that leads to follicle rupture, thereby impacting the effectiveness of UPA as EC. In addition, UPA could alter the onset of the contraceptive effect of progestin-containing contraceptives started immediately after UPA.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A single-blind (for observer), placebo-controlled, partial crossover study was conducted in two sites [Dominican Republic (DR) and the Netherlands (NDL)] over 11 months from October 2012 to September 2013. Healthy female volunteers participated in two of the three treatment cycles separated by a washout cycle. Treatment combinations studied were as follows: (i) a single 30 mg dose of UPA followed by 75 µg per day DSG for 20 days, (ii) a single 30 mg dose of UPA followed by 20 days of placebo matching that of DSG (PLB2) or (iii) one tablet of placebo-matching UPA (PLB1) followed by 75 µg per day DSG for 20 days. Participants were randomized to one of the three treatment sequences (UPA + DSG/UPA + PLB2, PLB1 + DSG/UPA + DSG and UPA + PLB2/PLB1 + DSG) when a lead follicle was ≥ 14 to <16 mm diameter on transvaginal ultrasound imaging (TVU).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIAL, SETTING, METHODS

A total of 71 women were included, and 49 were randomized to a first treatment combination of the three period sequences (20 in the DR and 29 in the NDL); 41 of the 49 continued and completed two treatment combinations (20 in the DR and 21 in the NDL).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Initiating DSG treatment the day after UPA significantly reduced the ovulation delaying effect of UPA (P = 0.0054). While ovulation occurred in only one of the 29 UPA-only cycles (3%) in the first 5 days, it occurred in 13 of the 29 (45%) UPA + DSG cycles.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This was a small, descriptive, pharmacodynamic study in which some findings differed by study site. Distinguishing between a cystic corpus luteum and a luteinized unruptured follicle (LUF) by TVU was difficult in some cases; however, the investigators reached consensus, when the study was still blinded, regarding ovulation based on hormone levels and careful review of daily TVU images.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Initiating the use of a DSG progestin-only pill (POP) immediately after UPA reduces the ability of UPA to delay ovulation and thus may decrease its efficacy as EC. If starting a DSG POP after using UPA for EC, and possibly any progestin-only method, consideration should be given to delaying for at least 5 days after UPA intake in order to preserve the ovulation delaying effects of UPA.